Ex Parte MoguillanskyDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 15, 201613357808 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/357,808 01125/2012 Jeffrey Moguillansky 36738 7590 06/17/2016 ROGITZ & AS SOCIA TES 750B STREET SUITE 3120 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 201104194.01 3767 EXAMINER HASAN, SYED Y ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2484 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/17/2016 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): Noelle@rogitz.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com J ohn@rogitz.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JEFFREY MOGUILLANSKY Appeal2014-007833 Application 13/357,808 Technology Center 2400 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JON M. JURGOV AN, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant 1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm-in-part. 2 1 Appellant identifies Sony Corp. as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 2.) 2 Our decision refers to the Specification filed Jan. 25, 2012 ("Spec."), the Final Office Action mailed Nov. 7, 2013 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed Jan. 14, 2014 ("App. Br."), the Examiner's Answer mailed May 23, 2014 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed July 6, 2014 ("Reply Br."). Appeal2014-007833 Application 13/357,808 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims are directed to applying motion blur to objects in video. (Spec. Title.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. System comprising: processor configured for controlling a video display and configured to execute logic to distort an appearance of at least one object presented in video on the display, the processor programmed to execute logic comprising: identifying at least one object in the video having motion satisfying a threshold; and distorting an appearance of the object by increasing a distortion of the appearance of the object to simulate high speed motion thereof responsive to a determination that the motion of the object satisfies the threshold, and not distorting appearances of objects in the video whose motions do not satisfy the threshold. (App. Br. 16- Claims App'x.) REJECTIONS Claims 1-7, 11, and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) based on Pepper et al. (US 2010/0149184, publ. June 17, 2010) ("Pepper"). (Final Act. 13-15.) Claims 8, 12-15, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Pepper and Kamil et al. (US 2012/0095817, publ. Apr. 19, 2012) ("Kamil"). (Final Act. 15-16.) Claims 9, 10, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Pepper and Togita (US 2005/0180510, publ. Aug. 18, 2005). (Final Act. 16-18.) 2 Appeal2014-007833 Application 13/357,808 ANALYSIS Rejection under 35 USC§ 102(a) "A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). To establish anticipation, every element and limitation of the claimed invention must be found in a single prior art reference, arranged as in the claim. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Claim 1 Appellant argues Pepper fails to disclose distorting an object in video having motion satisfying a threshold, and not distorting objects whose motions do not satisfy the threshold. (App. Br. 4--5.) We disagree. As the Examiner notes, Pepper is directed to providing motion blur to rotating objects. (Final Act. 13-14 citing Pepper i-fi-17-10, 22-26, 28, 29, 30, 35, 45, and 50, Fig. 8B.) Pepper blurs objects having rotational velocity, and does not blur objects with no rotational velocity. (Ans. 13.) Thus, the claimed "threshold" is zero rotational velocity according to Pepper's teachings. Pepper expressly provides that objects in "render targets"3 may be provided 3 A 'render target' is a feature of 3D graphics processing units (GPUs) that allows a 3D scene to be rendered to an intermediate memory buffer, or Render Target Texture (RTT), instead of a frame buffer or back buffer. The R TT can be manipulated with pixel shaders to apply additional effects to a final image before displaying it. See www.en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/ Render_Target (last viewed June 2, 2016.) 3 Appeal2014-007833 Application 13/357,808 with or without blurring. (Pepper il 54.) Thus, we agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusion of anticipation for claim 1. Claim 2 Appellant argues Pepper fails to disclose identifying objects in a video by matching objects to at least one template object, as recited in the claim. (App. Br. 8, 16- Claims App'x.) We agree with Appellant. The cited paragraph of Pepper describes sampling pixels around an object's axis of rotation and using those sampled pixels to retrieve color and depth data from buffers. The Examiner does not explain how this description equates to the claimed matching of an object to a template. (See Final Act. 14 citing Pepper i-f 26.)4 Thus, the Examiner has not shown each and every element of claim 2 is described in Pepper. Claim 3 Appellant argues Pepper fails to disclose identifying objects on the basis of having closed peripheries of any shape. (App. Br. 8, 16 - Claims App 'x.) Reviewing Pepper, we do not find this feature disclosed in the cited paragraph, which, as stated, mentions sampling of pixels for retrieval of color and depth data from buffers. (See Final Act. 14 citing Pepper i-f 26.) 5 4 Pepper's description of the use of a "sprite" or "primitive" (i-f 36) appears closer to the mark to what is claimed in claim 2. However, in reviewing Pepper, we can find no description of any comparison of any sprite or primitive to a corresponding object in the video image. Rather, Pepper appears to use a sprite or primitive as a starting representation of an object to which motion effects are applied. 5 Pepper does, however, describe using transparent pixels surrounding a wheel to identify which pixels are part of the wheel and which are not. (Pepper i-f 33.) 4 Appeal2014-007833 Application 13/357,808 Claim 4 The Examiner relies on Pepper to teach the claimed identifying objects in video by identifying groups of pixels having identical motion vectors and inferring that such groups of pixels are moving in unison at the same speed and direction. (App. Br. 8-9, 16- Claims App'x.) Reviewing the cited paragraph of Pepper, which addresses blurring of a wheel into a scene, we do not agree the claimed feature is disclosed therein. (See Final Act. 14 citing ,-r 31.)6 Claim 5 Appellant argues Pepper fails to disclose a processor to determine that an object in a video has motion satisfying the threshold by determining that the object has a motion vector with a magnitude at least equal to a threshold magnitude. (App. Br. 9-10, 17 - Claims App'x.) The Examiner correctly notes Pepper discloses the direction of motion (i.e., motion vector) may be determined to select a blurring technique. (Pepper i-f 55.) As previously noted, Pepper teaches blurring an object according to a motion threshold, i.e., whether the object is or is not moving. (See previous discussion concerning claim 1.) Claim 6 Appellant argues Pepper fails to disclose the claimed processor programmed to determine whether multiple objects are moving sufficiently fast to merit motion blur application, and responsive to a determination that only a first object is found to satisfy the threshold, motion blur is applied to the first object, but not to other objects in the video. (App. Br. 10-11, 17 - 6 However, we note that Pepper does describe use of linear motion blurring techniques for linearly moving objects. (Pepper i-f 55.) 5 Appeal2014-007833 Application 13/357,808 Claims App'x.) The Examiner finds this feature taught by Pepper. (Final Act. 14--15 citing Pepper i-fi-123, 28.) Pepper does indeed disclose blurring multiple moving objects (i-f 23), and that objects may be provided with or without blurring (i-f 54). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Pepper discloses the claimed feature. Claim 7 Appellant argues Pepper fails to disclose the amount of motion blurring varies according to velocity of the first object, such that the first object when moving with a speed at the threshold has a first, relatively small blur effect applied, and the first object when moving with a speed above the threshold has a second, relatively large motion blur effect applied, as claimed. (App. Br. 11-12, 17 - Claims App'x.) Reviewing the cited paragraphs of Pepper, we agree with the Examiner this feature is disclosed therein. (Final Act. 15 citing Pepper i-fi-135, 48, Fig. 8B.) Specifically, Pepper describes its pixel shader operates to render a blurred wheel texture, and that as the velocity of the wheel changes, the spacing between samples changes (i-f 48), which implies the blur effect also changes. Thus, we agree with the Examiner this feature is disclosed by Pepper. Claim 11 Appellant argues Pepper fails to disclose delineating between two moving objects, one going faster than a threshold speed and one going slower, then blurring an image of the first moving object but not an image of the second moving object responsive to a determination of a relationship between the threshold speed and first and second speeds. (App. Br. 12, 18- Claims App'x.) The Examiner's citations to Pepper disclose blur effect applied according to the velocity of a wheel, which implies a continuum of 6 Appeal2014-007833 Application 13/357,808 blur effects according to wheel velocity. (Ans. 24 citing Pepper ilil 35, 48, Fig. 8B.) Thus, at all non-zero wheel velocities, some amount of blur is applied in Pepper. The claim states the image of the second moving object is not blurred. Accordingly, we find Pepper does not disclose all features of the claim. Claim 17 Appellant argues Pepper does not disclose the claimed processor programmed to determine an object in a video has motion satisfying a threshold by determining an object has a motion vector with a magnitude at least equal to a threshold magnitude. (App. Br. 9-10.) For the reasons stated above with respect to claim 5, we agree with the Examiner that Pepper discloses the subject matter of claim 17. (Final Act. 5, Ans. 19, 20, and 25, citing Pepperi-fi-f 31, 55.) Claim 18 Appellant argues Pepper fails to disclose the claimed increase of contrast of a selected object relative to contrast of other objects responsive to determination that the select object is moving in the video at a speed that satisfies a threshold speed. (App. Br. 18.) The Examiner references the findings regarding claim 4 pertaining to a group of pixels moving at the same speed and direction representing a discrete single object. (Final Act. 15, Ans. 25.) We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not demonstrated the relevance of the claim 4 findings to what is recited in claim 18. Rejection under 35 USC§ 103(a) Claims 8, 12-15, and 19- Pepper and Kami! An obviousness rejection requires the Examiner to provide adequate "articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal 7 Appeal2014-007833 Application 13/357,808 conclusion of obviousness." KSR Int? Co. v. Telejlex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Appellant argues the Examiner relies on Kamil (Final Act. 16 citing Kamil i-f 191) to teach the features of the stated claims, but that Kamil fails to teach the recited features. (App. Br. 13-14.) Specifically, Appellant argues Kamil fails to teach how visual effects can be applied to a periphery of an object, as recited in claims 8, 14, and 15, or based on a relationship between speeds, as recited in claims 12 and 19. Claims 8, 14, and 15 We are not persuaded the Examiner erred because claim 8 recites the alternatives of increasing contrast of a periphery of an object or causing the object to have a glowing appearance. As the Examiner notes, Kamil teaches application of a glowing effect to an object. (Final Act. 16 citing Kamil ,-r 191.) Claim 14 recites that the glow is effected by increasing the brightness of a periphery of a first moving object. (App. Br. 19- Claim App'x.) It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan that applying a glow effect to an object increases the brightness of that object, including its periphery. Thus, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Kamil teaches this claim limitation. Claim 15 recites that the object glow is effected by generating a second periphery larger than a periphery of the first moving object and spaced just outside the periphery of the first object with brightness increased relative to the brightness of the first object's periphery. (App. Br. 19- Claims App'x.) Kamil's teaching of applying a glow effect to an object does not provide the level of detail recited in claim 15 to produce a glow 8 Appeal2014-007833 Application 13/357,808 effect using a second periphery. Thus, we find Appellant's argument persuasive with respect to claim 15. Claims 12 and 19 Claim 12 recites increasing contrast or brightness of the second moving (slower) object relative to the first moving (faster) object responsive to a determination of the relationship between the threshold speed and first and second speeds. (App. Br. 19- Claims App'x.) Although Kamil teaches visual effects including brightness and contrast balancing, such reference does not do so in connection with objects moving at different speeds. Thus, we find Appellant's argument persuasive with respect to claim 12. Claim 19 recites the processor is configured to apply glow around the select object responsive to a determination that the select object is moving in the video at a speed that satisfies a threshold speed. (App. Br. 20 - Claims App'x.) Kamil teaches visual effects including "blur, glow and motion blur, and the like." We agree with Appellant that Kamil's teaching is insufficient to suggest to a person of ordinary skill that glow can be applied to an object based on its speed. Rejection under 35 USC§ 103(a) Claims 9, 10, and 20 - Pepper and To git a Appellant argues Togita states an image free from blurring is achieved in a slow playback mode, but it does not teach interpolation. (App. Br. 14 citing Togita i-f 51.) To the contrary, the Examiner finds the features of claims 9, 10, and 20 are taught by Togita. (Final Act. 16-18 citing Togita ,-r 51.) Claim 9 recites, responsive to a determination that a trick play command to stop or slow play back to slower than normal playback is received, the processor is programmed to remove motion blurring of the first 9 Appeal2014-007833 Application 13/357,808 object. (App. Br. 18 - Claims App'x.) This claim does not recite "interpolation" and, accordingly, we find Appellant's argument not commensurate in scope with the claim as recited. Claim 10 recites, responsive to a determination that a trick play command to stop or slow play back to slower than normal playback is received, the processor is programmed to determine a position of the object to be an interpolated position for display of the object at the interpolated position. (App. Br. 18 - Claims App'x.) We agree with the Examiner this feature is taught by Togita, which predicts (interpolates) a still image from I- , P- , or B-pictures in a slow playback mode. (Ans. 27-28 citing Togita i-f 51, see also Togita i-fi-1 46-50.) Specifically, because a person of ordinary skill would understand prediction of a still image in slow playback mode includes prediction of the locations of moving objects within that image, Togita's teachings, combined with Pepper's, meet the claimed limitation. Claim 20 recites that responsive to a user command to slow video presentation to less than a normal playback speed, the processor is configured to remove motion blur from the select object. (App. Br. 20 - Claims App'x.) Togita teaches removal of blurring in slow playback mode. (Ans. 28 citing Togita i-f 51.) Thus, we do not find Appellant's argument persuasive. Remaining Claims No argument is presented with respect to claims 13 and 16. Accordingly, we summarily sustain the Examiner's rejection with respect to these claims. 10 Appeal2014-007833 Application 13/357,808 DECISION We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 5-7, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) based on Pepper. We reverse the rejection of claims 2--4, 11, and 18. We affirm the rejection of claims 8, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Pepper and Kamil. We reverse the rejection of claims 12, 15, and 19. We affirm the rejection of claims 9, 10, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Pepper and Togita. No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a)( 1 )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation